Grepolis Comprehensive Leadership Guide
Grepolis Comprehensive Leadership Guide by Achilles
How useful is a Leader?
The answer is not as easy as yes or no, not because I can complicate it, but because there are two sides to the issue. Essentially, the issue is about, what is more in important in an alliance, the quality of the membership base? Or the quality of the leader? The answer is not so hard to understand. Looking at a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the membership base being the most important and 10 being the leader is most important; at the beginning of a game, the position on the scale is 10 with the leadership being most important. As the game moves on, the scale slowly falls from 10 to 1. This does not happen quickly, and is in fact most likely rather slow. On the scale, it would only get to 5 probably when many players are getting above 300K points. The impact of a leadership on a alliance in the beginning of the world, irrespective of premade or other, is huge; diplomacy, recruiting, general management of the alliance and PnP have the largest effect at this point in the game. Due to this, an alliance’s success relies upon the ability of the leader. Once you get further into the game, co-ordination and the players themselves take more of a role in how the alliance performs, as player mobility between alliances becomes greatly decreased and the alliance success starts to slowly rely on how that alliance does in war. The leader becomes more of a motivator and fighter himself rather than a diplomat and recruiter.
Fear not, the above did have a point to it. Since assuming the above is correct, you now get onto important issues on how the structure of the leadership should be laid out. Which again will be matched to the time scale in the world, due to how important a leader is.
Leading me to say that at the start of the world, when leadership is more important, it is very important that there is a sole leader; and that this sole leader is up to standard, that means good on PnP, persuading people, being proactive, friendly and active. In having this, the sole leader is then needed to be able to give the alliance the direction it needs, able to recruit in what areas he/she wants to and do whatever deals necessary. It is far more efficient to have just one leader, in terms of decision making, knowledge, and the workings of an alliance. At a time when leadership is most important what you do not want is a reactive, not proactive, council that vote on decisions. You may love democracy, but remember that having one leader rather than a few is actually more democratic, as long as everyone consents to that leader being the leader. And if you’re in the alliance; you do consent.
As you get further and further into the game, and co-ordination gets more important, and the leadership is perhaps less influential on the alliance’s success, this is when an alliance would want to broaden its leadership. Every player goes through activity issues, to then rely on this player can be unreliable and for that player to be relied on co-ordinating on top of everything else it can be too dependant on that leader, and as such, an unnecessary risk. You will also find that many players as you get through the world will develop a great number of personal friendships with other players, these can often be utilised if that player with the contacts is in the leadership. For these two reasons, it is often then best as you get deeper into a world, to start to spread responsibility, one player taking on everything is no longer such a great idea. Especially when you now want your main leader’s responsibility to be less of a diplomat, but more of a war leader. I would still argue for a defined leadership structure, so that decision making can be decisive if things are looking desperate or in-alliance arguments are starting to escalate; but generally, delegation of leadership should start to increase the more you get into the game.
Then to the issue of who to recruit? Well it relates to my point above. Talking to a player is the best way of knowing what that player will be like. You can judge their activity, their likelihood of being active on a forum and also their experience. Don’t start relying on something stupid like troop counts (earlier on) and bp, just talk to players who are doing well (say top 40/50 in the ocean), get a good feel for them and you should know whether they will fit in, don’t be afraid to think, no, they won’t fit in.
What is Diplomacy?
Always remember that essentially, diplomacy is primarily a defence mechanism, a way of deflecting the blow an alliance may give you by giving them multiple enemies or quite simply, divide and conquer. Do not see it as an offence technique, it is a way of weakening your enemy or strengthening your defence, it will not grow your alliance, only your players conquering villages will do that, so never rely on it alone. Coalitions are useless to be in unless you are going to take advantage of the situation and go in there and do some damage, take some villages, get something for yourself.
Let’s start with merging, it is to do with diplomacy even if not to do with your diplomacy list. Many people are opposed to merges. Why? Because it is a fast track option to more land, more points, higher rank. It seems like taking the easy option. First thing to say, don’t be afraid of the easy option if it is the best option! But secondly, you must judge if it is the correct option, for it may not be that at all.
First thing that must be considered is do you need it? What will merging an alliance into you add to your alliance? What location do they hold, how good, active, and talkative are they? Some of the questions that you may want to ask yourself. For example, if you are a Ocean 44 alliance what will merging with a Ocean 56 rank one alliance do? Will they really be able to support you? There are four occasions I suggest merging may be a good option:
1. When you control an area but barely, and do not have the player base and density in the area that you may need and may give you a weak spot as a result.
2. Manic inactivity. If you have a lot of inactivity and have a load of actives wanting to merge, then them joining should strongly be considered so that the burden of inactivity is relatively less.
3. Bringing in more experienced players to the fold if you have a lack and there are not so many good recruiting prospects, this is when merging is more like recruiting several players at once.
4. Last choice. If things are not looking so well, a larger alliance is gunning for war that you think you can’t win, your alliance is dwindling in numbers and unable to keep up, you are losing a war and may need help. Merging could be an answer.
Merging as explained above can bring its advantages. But just remember its disadvantages:
1. Possible knock to morale. This is likely, to happen, since you may lose that community feel that you had before, which may take some time to get back as players don’t know each other so well and feel less inclined to speak.
2. Disloyalty, some of those players you bring in may already be disloyal to their current tribes, never mind yours, this is a risky move, bringing in players you have not built any kind of relationship with, loyalty issues will be present.
3. Leadership split. If you start bargaining for leadership positions, things could start to get messy soon, to an extreme length even a power struggle. Even if you are the one firmly in charge, leaders may start to fight, it does happen.
4. Loss of credibility. You are likely to suffer a huge knock to your reputation if ever you had one, and alliances are more likely to look down on you, if it was a sizeable merge.
5. Increased inactivity as players begin to question whether they feel like staying as the alliance they were fighting no longer exists, it can take a lot of effort for some to join in with a new alliance.
6. The refugee problem. And not only that, possible diplomacy problems that may come with them, and issues others have with them.
Merging is risky business, but done in the right circumstances, and done correctly, it can work.
To NAP or not to NAP?
I will say, do not be scared of NAPs. Many put forward the argument that NAPs are useless because all you are doing is limiting your targets, where that alliance will not help you against an enemy. But as I said above, divide and conquer, is a very good technique. However small or big a tribe, there is no shame in putting them for later so that you can go after an alliance gunning for you in the present. You will be much more successful in war by taking one enemy down then another afterwards rather than taking two enemies at the same time. As the Native American saying goes:
“If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both.”
Do not be afraid to use NAPs to your advantage, though obviously hide the craft of doing so, or you may not look so good on the forums. Though whether you say that there is a possibility of more than a NAP in the future or not, to be honest, an alliance is being foolish to think that you will never think of breaking that deal you have. How to break up a NAP? Well people normally come up with all sorts of excuses, sniping, recruiting refugees or just plain we felt like it. If an alliance breaks a NAP with you for some reason or another, don’t believe it because of that reasoning the likelihood is, they want your villages, pure and simple.
This is always seen as the big issue of diplomacy. How many, where, who, and what. My first bit of advice is that there is no perfect number, you could have one, you could have 4, it depends on your situation. However, do not get too many. For every extra ally you get, you devalue your other allies. And devaluing allies is never a good thing, you devalue them, and they become nothing more than glorified NAPs. And if that happens, they will be less likely to co-operate in your plans, and become increasingly unreliable. Do not let that happen. You need to know your allies plans, you need to co-ordinate your plans alongside theirs and you should often seek to give advice and help (without damaging yourself), for they will normally return the favour. Be your allies friends, and you will find a relationship of trust building up so that you are secure in that alliance.
Secrecy or not?
Many often ignore this issue, but I think it quite a large one. It is the issue of whether you make some of your alliance’s diplomacy known, or not. Now there is never much use in showing off your NAPs, but allies is a different matter altogether. Some tribes often show their allies, and this does have it’s advantages. If an alliance is going to war with you, they will be much less hasty about it, for they do not want to land themselves in a two on one scenario. However, as they say, knowledge is power, and to deny them that knowledge may often be held back due to not knowing your allies. However, I suggest that most tribes will often lead with ignorance, or get some kind of backup plan should you happen to have any unexpected allegiances. But whatever you decide, remember, you are trying to use them knowing or not knowing in an attempt to put them off warring you. You will have the advantage by choosing your wars, not letting them choose them for you, so holding them off is often a better idea.
We seem them so many times. Mostly late in the game, against alliances that are rank 1 and streaking away from the rest, smaller alliances band together in an attempt to overcome that alliance through numbers. But as I explained earlier, diplomacy is a defence mechanism, to draw out fire. Since none of those tribes normally are able to give much damage themselves, the coalition usually fails due to them just being picked off one by one without much harm being given to the alliance being ganged up on.
Last tip on diplomacy, be nice. Be respectful, look to be honest, even if you’re not. In this game, people are not amazingly brilliant at thinking with their heads all too often. Give them a few compliments and so forth will often have them doing what you want. Present a positive image of yourself and you will find the deal you get for your alliance is a lot better. Do not let issues such as pride and arrogance get in the way of getting the best deal for your alliance.
Though don’t be afraid to present a false image, be cunning, or whatever else if it comes to your advantage. But on the surface, observer the niceties
And when I say play, I mean able to play every part of the game very well. That means being good at various aspects from lightning start ups to early and late stages of conquering. This is such a huge bit of advice that it is difficult to explain how important it is. Not all of the best players are best of leaders, but the best of leaders are the best of players.
Starting with early on. An alliance can be built quite easily upon your success at the start, even at the 500-point level. Secure yourself a top 20 spot (not too early on for obvious reasons), and all players whoever they are will give you immediate respect. People will be more likely to listen to you, you will be able to befriend those other players doing well around you easier, and developing loyalty around you, and your alliance will go from strength to strength. Early on there is no better indication for a player than how good a leader is in that alliance, so do well, and you hand yourself a huge advantage. Throughout the game being a larger player tends to grant respect, but early on it is often crucial in recruiting a member base that you want.
Later on in the game, though recruiting becomes less of an issue and your alliance is not just judged upon you as a player, and rather your leadership skills, being able to play is an essential part of leadership. If you do not understand how the game works in detail, and are not able to think of possible defence, offence and co-ordination tactics that work well then your alliance is given a huge burden. And do not think defence and offence are just co-ordinating issues, since they are more often than not tie closely in with expansion and diplomacy. And to master both of those you have to know the game inside and out and be a great player yourself. Whilst knowing the rules so that you do not go over that line is also essential.
Leading from the front
Leading from the front can often bring large advantages. For one thing, you are running into the heart of battle, some players will always be fearful of jumping into a battle they can’t win, if you jump in without hesitation, it is likely to put some of those on the fence head first into the battle. Secondly, you are able to assess the situation yourself, realise what is going right and wrong in a war, and know the next best step to take. How to adapt to a situation, and how to get the upper hand are often easier when in the battle yourself. Thirdly, late game is all about attacking and co-ordinating, by playing yourself you are granting your alliance a player you know will never betray, since you are the alliance.
But the essential point is, that with pro-activity comes opportunity, good image, reputation and furthering of your alliance. Remember, if your not going forwards, your going backwards.
It is actually very very simple. A player in an alliance can either be a negative or a positive. Look at it like this, every player in an alliance naturally contains a negative. Having more numbers in a tribe can detract from the atmosphere, and are an extra village that could be attacked and is a liability in needing to be supported. However, this negative can be wiped out and reversed into a positive by that players actions. If that player supports when asked to, he/she is bringing something positive to the alliance, if they post on the forum, they are giving yet more positives to an alliance, if they take down targets or even solidify an alliance’s area, yet more positives. If you include the extra number as part of the negative, it is then about evaluating whether a player is overall negative or positive. Which then means, if you just have positive players in your alliance, numbers is no longer an issue as by nature the extra weight of numbers is taken as a negative but outweighed by the positives those players bring in.
In summary, numbers don’t matter, it is whether the players you have give to the alliance, if you have a member count of 200 it’s unlikely they all do, it’s about keeping those that do, and clearing the dead-weight.
Starting with the idea of internally conquering, another good TW player (Vpar2) said not to conquer the villages of quitting players, because when you internally conquer you’re not getting anything, you aren’t increasing your alliances villages by any amount. There are some that believe that you should not internally conquer and instead let players go abandoned as your not gaining anything by taking them. Well, obviously straight away it can be see that it is a pretty retarded theory, since internally conquering is not gaining villages, the point is to put a plug in the losses that you are getting by a player quitting. There are only two worlds in which this is not the case, and these are the speed 3 worlds and speed worlds where the objective is not to get as many villages as you can to rule the world, but rather to eliminate your opponents. So Vpar2 was correct for the world he was playing, but for others who say you should let go abandoned instead of taking them, it’s a backwards theory. Which rules out the first option of doing nothing.
Which gives you two options, move the account to someone else, or to internally conquer. Let’s start with the latter and with another little story. In world 6 (TW Again ) there was a PnP clash between two tribes, the argument was over what was considered a very negative style of play. Obviously there was more to it than that, but that was just one argument. What was argued was that they had an inbuilt advantage due to the way they played. They had a high rate of players quitting, and had a policy of their top players, getting priority over villages. This meant their top players would conquer a lot of inactive players and to fill in the gap of those players leaving they would recruit rim side of their tribe. So they were basically eating themselves whilst recruiting more villages into their tribe. Obviously they were conquering other villages too, but it was just an argument that they could sustain larger growth because of the high amount of quitters, top players internally conquering and just recruiting to replace players. The reason why growth is increased because of internal conquering is simple, less waste of troops on free villages, more villages getting bp. And though an argument was that this is perhaps a more boring way of playing, internal conquering and then recruiting is a great way of giving an alliance increased growth for players.
However, increasingly popular is the option of gifting accounts to other players. This means no wasting culture on internal conquering and sustaining that membership base. However, gifting accounts is not always as perfect as it may seem. Again, the main point is actually just psychology. About 70 percent of the time a gifted account to another person is not going to be played as well as it is by the original account owner. Whether it is a pride issue, with their name not on the box, or the fact that their slow start because of not knowing the account leads to gradual decline, players often don’t do as good a job. This can mean the account does worse, the player is not a regular in communication within the alliance and when increasing amounts of accounts are gifted, you are actually starting to look at a big big problem.
However, that is not to say I would rule it out completely. There are three areas where I would say you should gift over internally conquering. The first is where you know you have a player not in the world that is going to do a good job, someone who you are friends with, and are very sure that they will do well and that they have the hunger to go out and conquer with the account. The second is when a player in your alliance is conquered, the interest they have in the world can often overcome the hassle of a new account and the existing communication they have in the alliance often just continues. The third is to do with area. Fringe accounts, where a player is either a bit further away from the rest of the pack and players would have to conquer quite far away to internally conquer, or where they are on the edge of a war, it is perhaps best to hand it to another player. Monitor it closely, if the new owner does well with the new account then job done, if not, then try get another account owner. The risk of doing this is often better than letting it go barbarian or internally conquering it.
Thank You for Reading This!
I hope it improves your leadership ability.